|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I guess I just never understood why the media (and why it seems quite a few fans) hated Mangini from the very beginning. I don't remember ever seeing so many people calling for a coach to be fired so quickly.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I was on the "Don't-pick-from-the-Bellicheck-tree-again" bandwagon (Romeo,...). Now,...I say we got it "more" right this time around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Come on Attack, what was Brady's % that day again? Why do some refuse to look at the fact there were two teams playing those days, not just one.
Or are you saying we do have the talent to beat NE and NO on one of their "good days"? Even one of their average days?
"Refuse to look at there were two teams playing"..guess you refuse to look there two scores from those games..
Seriously..what is that supposed to mean???
What do ya think I'm saying?
Last edited by Attack Dawg; 12/16/10 04:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523 |
Because he was an arrogant ass,and his arrogance was without merit.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220 |
Nah it ain't meant to be mean. As long as we've posted on the same board I thought you'd know the difference.  I just don't think you can simply neglect to look at how one team seemed to outperform themselves and another team underpeforms on any given day and not put those factors into the equasion. Brady was way off that day and we played over our heads somewhat IMO. Not saying it's the only factor, but it is one in the equasion. What I think you say sometimes is you point to certain things that support your position while ommiting others that don't. That's why the "Come on". Proven, established teams can play consistantly week in and week out. younger teams with somewhat less talent will struggle with that. The team does seem to rally around colt and he makes far less mental mistakes to this point than I've seen from the others. So if you single out two games and not look at the work as a whole, any subject or stat can be scewed. Selective pick and choose to me. I don't think it's realistic to this point to expect this team to be consistant with injurries and the current depth. As a whole, I think that they've done well as it pertains to consistantly being in almost every game. Going into this season, it's what most said they would be hapy with. Now? Not so much. You can take most teams best two games and compare them to their worst two games and say there's something wrong. ie.....I would have hated to see NE fans react to losing to us. But then again, they have a much larger body of work to be judged on. jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
If you so disagree with him, why not break it down, quote it and give some sound oppositions to his points?
I actually did...but I disagree with his premise...so the rest becomes a moot point. I simply don't think we're less talented than BUF etc...Vers wrote that we play the way we play because often we are the less talented team....I see it the other way around: we play conservative turtle-ball, teh way Vers described when we play bad teams and mix it up more when we play better teams...that's what I see on sundays
I'm not even talking about going deep...I know we suck at that...but against NO and NE we did more than run Hillis between the Ts...we ran pitchouts, sweeps counters...that's what our OL is best at, at least the left side...so freaking USE it the way we did against those good teams....those plays aren't riskier than Metcalf up the middle...it's just better play calling....mix in a quick slant...when was the last one you saw the Browns try? We get stuffed with 8-9 in the box, run blitz after run blitz...and we run no freaking slants...that's not screaming for more risk, that's demanding more creativity and taking advantage of what the opponent does....we did this ONCE the last month...on the TD drive against MIA...afetr Daboll/EM finally realized that MIA is leaving the middle WIIIDEEE open for the TE...it took countless drives of run, run, sack/inc, punt to realize that...and that's bad coaching
I want my Coaches to have a "feel" for the game he is watching, not one "sticking" stubbornly to an ideology, that doesn't work drive after drive...againt TB, KC and BUF otoh he changed to quickly outsmarting himself...we ran over those teams at the beginning, then went pass happy...why? I'm perfectly ok to get stuffed on 1-2 drives after a good one with the same style...if it's stopped, change up more...but why leaving prematurely what's working or stubbornly sticking to what's working?
I'm like 80%+ on any play run or pass presnap...we're THAT predictable...against NO and NE otoh I was wrong more than in any other games by a mile..they MIXED IT UP much better and it helped us win the game...I just don't get why we shouldn't do this against weaker teams if it's working against better ones....and again, the NO and NE weren't exactly HIGH RISK gameplans....just way more creative
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
And I'm 95% on any play run or pass pre-snap.
And for every other game I watch, I'm probably 90%.
See how easy it is to say things that aren't provable?
I'll be the first to admit I don't know if a run is going left or right most of the time.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know, most of the time, if it will be a long pass, short pass, screen, and out, whatever.
But trust me, if you're only 80% right on whether it will be a run or a pass.......dude, learn football.
I mean, even for my 10 yr. old daughter to guess before each play, she's going to hit 50%. Throw in that I know down and distance, and what it means, as well as the game day conditions, a teams offensive strengths and the other teams defensive strengths or weaknesses, and a whole host of other info..........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
All you people who want Daboll gone don't know what the hell you're talking about
ammo...Let's be honest about Daboll...
He is a young, inexperienced coach who is in the second year of his OJT as a NFL offensive coordinator.
Both Daboll and Mangini were hired to coach with the Patriots in 2000 and when Mangini took the HC job with the Jets, he hired Daboll to be his QB coach. When Mangini was hired as the Browns HC, he hired Daboll as his OC.
Obviously Mangini believes Daboll is the best man for the job but with Holmgren as President of Browns, the Browns now have someone with tons of experience calling plays in the NFL, judging Daboll's performance.
Whether Daboll has a future with the Browns or not, may be tied to how well he works with McCoy over these last 3 games. If Daboll and McCoy work well together and the Browns offense improves, Daboll has a good shot at keeping his job.
Is Daboll a diamond in the rough?
Mike will let us know in Jan....
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
Knight:
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
Nice, well-though-out post. I appreciate the effort you put into it, for sure.
The quotes you made about potential coaching "candidates" got me to thinking... not so much about personnel, but the actual validity of the news/opinion articles themselves. Since the beginning of the internet explosion, there has been a blurring of the line between fact and fiction, opinion and hard news, concrete and conjecture... and many readers are either too lazy to read between the lines, or too mentally undisciplined to separate real fact from forcefully-presented opinion or conjecture.
It's one of the reasons this site disallows posts from certain sources, and why we don't have a "rumor mill" section on the board... and I for one, applaud it.
When you watch the football-related talk shows on espn or even NFL Network, you'll see a delivery style that's all the rage these days... and all too familiar on these boards, as well. Ex-players will spout an opinion with the veracity of fact, without giving due diligence to the tried and true journalistic ethic of quoting their source. It all SOUNDS good... but in the end, without fact and verification, it's really just their opinion- being forcefully put forth.
That may be enough to convince some, but I'm old school, Dawg. If it can't be verified, it's worth the same weight as any poster here at DT. Zorn, Mora, et al make for compelling copy and water cooler fodder, but there's been absolutely no indication that any of them are in Cleveland's future. Just because some ex-jock-turned-pundit infers it doesn't make it so, you know?
As for your assertion that MH wants to coach... I get it. But I'll say this as well: I think Mike misses coaching, but is committed to being Prez even more. I see it this way: you don't do something for 40 years, quit it, and not miss it. That just doesn't happen with anyone who cared about what he did. MH is no exception. BUT (and this is key...) he's already coached. At every imaginable spot on a staff roster. The only feather he hasn't put in his cap is that of running the entire show.
He's already done everything on the sidelines that a man could do... including being a HC who's won the Super Bowl. There really is only one challenge left for him... and that's the one he's elected to tackle as Prez of the Cleveland Browns. Imagine the legacy that would be attached to his name if he presided over a team that went from outhouse to penthouse under his watch. He'd have done it all- from High School History teacher to President of one of the most storied NFL franchises in history.
I'll bring it all full-circle now: My thinking is that Mike Holmgren is as committed to presiding over the Browns as he was committed to being a coach during those days. It's the only real dragon he has left to slay. Taking a the HC job would be a step backward to something he's already accomplished... and would leave his Hall Of Fame resume incomplete.
I believe that these constant rumors are the product of
1. media hate for Mangini
2. Writers looking for a juicy, "talkworthy" angle for their next submission
3. Fan dissatisfaction with another losing record.
Put the 3 together, and you have a "perfect storm" of rumor, innuendo, gossip, and speculation as to the Browns' immediate future. It's all compelling talkfodder....
...but NONE of it is based in fact.
My prediction: (and it's only me talking, so it has no more weight than anyone else's word...) Holmgren stays the course as Prez, retains as much of the coaching staff as he can, and allows the current regime (complete with Haskell and Heckert) to continue what they've started. He'll tweak what he has to, swap out coaches as he needs to... but ultimately, he'll try his best to retire from the NFL with another Lombardi- but this time, as the "Lord Of It All."
As Charles Barkley once put it: "Anything less would be... unthinkable."
There's no bigger challenge out there than that for him, and he has a group which (on the surface) has a chance to grow and excel together. His professional window, like you said, is about 5 years... and I believe he'll use those years to cement his place in the PFHOF as Browns President of Operations.
When you look at the man's body of work, it only makes sense. Why be a General, when you can be the King?
.02
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
Is that fair to Coach? I sure as hell don't think so.
 There you go, assuming that life is fair. Eric is a big boy and he knows coaches are hired to be fired.
It is amusing to read your posts, though. You fall in love with someone every year. Then when they fail you, as they almost always will, you latch on to the next lucky recipient of your man-lust.
None of us knows what will happen with EM or the team. However, I'm willing to let Holmgren and Heckert make whatever decisions have to be made.
Just win, baby.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
jc thanks refs for deleting the BUF forum right after I posted an answer to DC in a thread that was still going...way to go  I guess another "coincidence" huh?
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
What a great post Clem. I agree most of the fire BS that goes on has to do with the media and their opinion, not much to do with football at all. It's sad becuase it has done nothing but drag us down again and again and again.
People need to consider opinion not take it on as thier own......
JMHO
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Nah it ain't meant to be mean. As long as we've posted on the same board I thought you'd know the difference.
Dude U ought to know I have a thick hide..IF Diam says I have no heart,GMAB..I literally was not sure what you were saying.
I never said NE/NO were playing at the peak of their game.I was focusing on HOW the Browns were playing..they were instense and the gameplan/playing was top notch..tell me if NE had been on their game would they have rolled Cleveland like they've been steamrolling everyone else?
I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
I actually did...but I disagree with his premise...so the rest becomes a moot point. I simply don't think we're less talented than BUF etc...Vers wrote that we play the way we play because often we are the less talented team....I see it the other way around: we play conservative turtle-ball, teh way Vers described when we play bad teams and mix it up more when we play better teams...that's what I see on Sundays
Man you see what we got for a QB and you see Fitzpatrick and you say we got better talent then Buffalo. Talk about not agreeing with the premise…….
BTW A QB is critical to an offense thought you should know that. If I can put a better QB then you on the field I have better chance then you do right then and there…
I'm not even talking about going deep...I know we suck at that...but against NO and NE we did more than run Hillis between the Ts...we ran pitchouts, sweeps counters...that's what our OL is best at, at least the left side...so freaking USE it the way we did against those good teams....those plays aren't riskier than Metcalf up the middle...it's just better play calling....mix in a quick slant...when was the last one you saw the Browns try? We get stuffed with 8-9 in the box, run blitz after run blitz...and we run no freaking slants...that's not screaming for more risk, that's demanding more creativity and taking advantage of what the opponent does....we did this ONCE the last month...on the TD drive against MIA...afetr Daboll/EM finally realized that MIA is leaving the middle WIIIDEEE open for the TE...it took countless drives of run, run, sack/inc, punt to realize that...and that's bad coaching
Are you kidding we did next to nothing against NO on offense here are the numbers Colt 9-16 for 74 yards Hillis 16 carries for 69 yards. The NE game everything we did worked like it was designed to work. Let’s not revise history here though. We won the Miami game and Watson ended the game with a career hign 10 catches. While you lament the absence of in game adjustments when you get one you complain it didn’t come soon enough.
The point you never even touch on is Miami outmanned us at nearly every position and we still beat them. Now just how in the hell is that possible? That was the perfect example of what Vers was talking about. Honestly who has better talent us or Miami. Hell they have an OC that has 30 years of NFL experience and Daboll’s offense beat his team, with less talent.
I want my Coaches to have a "feel" for the game he is watching, not one "sticking" stubbornly to an ideology, that doesn't work drive after drive...againt TB, KC and BUF otoh he changed to quickly outsmarting himself...we ran over those teams at the beginning, then went pass happy...why? I'm perfectly ok to get stuffed on 1-2 drives after a good one with the same style...if it's stopped, change up more...but why leaving prematurely what's working or stubbornly sticking to what's working?
When we continue to run the ball then it’s he should have passed more. I get it now no matter what it’s always wrong. That is the consistant theme and quite frankly gets old. He needs to commit to the run, no we need more play action, no we need to throw more on 1st down. We need to involve our WR’s more. We under utilize Moore. We take to many bathroom breaks.
But never the obvios simple answer we lack talent and we lack talent at the single most important position on a football team. We don’t have, haven’t had a franchise QB, hell we haven’t even had the same starter from one week to the next.
Football 101 if your starter goes down your offense generally suffers as a result. But hell our starter never really ever went down we don’t have one to go down.
I think you would be surprised how much better a coach looks with a franchise QB and how awful the ones you hold in high regard would look without one.
Take NE they have had no less then 3 OC over the past decade and they continue to have great success, because they have a franchise QB. They changed this season from a team that hardly ever used their TE to a team that is transitioning towards using their TE’s almost exclusively, and still they are productive, why?
You have all the answers but the one that goes to the true heart of the problem you don’t even consider, It’s hard to take you serious when you miss by such a wide margin honest it is.
I'm like 80%+ on any play run or pass presnap...we're THAT predictable...against NO and NE otoh I was wrong more than in any other games by a mile..they MIXED IT UP much better and it helped us win the game...I just don't get why we shouldn't do this against weaker teams if it's working against better ones....and again, the NO and NE weren't exactly HIGH RISK gameplans....just way more creative
I think I already pointed out where the offence wasn’t so hot in the NO game in fact we had 12 1st downs for the game while NO had 25. But you say you had a hard time calling plays? Hell most of Hillis’s yardage came on our final drive to kill the clock and I’m saying it right here and now if you had a hard time figuring out Hillis was coming with the rock then brother you never will ever figure out this offense.
Honestly you equate a good offense with winning and it ends right there. It’s good if we win bad if we lose for you. Got to call it how it is on that one………
We get a good QB in here and we build this offense around that guy I bet Daboll looks worlds better to all of the guys that think he is in over his head. Great OC’s and HC's are made from great QB’s seldom are great QB’s made from great OC. The focus is in the wrong place. Get us a franchise QB Mike like you said you would when you came here.
What he said at his 1st press conference still holds true we need that guy and we don;t have him YET....................
JMHO
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
j/c...
i make no secret of the fact that i like what Mangini has done. i liked his potential from day 1, as he was barely given time in NY, and still produced a solid foundation. he appears to have turned the culture here, as well. there are things i don't like, to be sure, but do you think other HC's didn't do some on-the-job training?
i forget if it was DJANGO, ATTACK, or someone else that said you will know about a HC's potential by the end of year 2. i thought i'd look into it, so i picked the 5 best HC's in recent years (IMO, of course). in no particular order...
1. Jeff Fisher...inherited 1-9 team, finished 1-5. went 7-9, then 3 years of 8-8 before a winning record.
2. Bill Cowher...inherited 7-9 team. went 11-5, 9-7 his first 2 years & didn't have a losing record until year 7.
3. Bill Belichick...in Cleveland, he inherited a 3-13 team. went 6-10, 7-9, and only had 1 winning season in 5 years. in New England, he inherited an 8-8 team. went 5-11, 11-5 and hasn't had a losing record since.
4. Andy Reid...inherited a 3-13 team. went 5-11, 11-5, and has had 1 losing season since.
5. Tony Dungy...inherited a 7-9 team. went 6-10, 10-6, and hasn't had a losing record since.
i don't know what WOULD become of the Mangini-led Browns, but the only coach to inherit a BAD team and turn it around quickly was Andy Reid. Dungy, Belichick (NE), and Cowher inherited avg squads. Fisher couldn't turn the proverbial corner until year 5. Belichick never had the chance in Cleveland. bottom line is that it isn't so simple as year 1&2 record.
another point on coaching comparisons...let's look at the teams with = or worse records to ours, and group them based on overall talent (subjective, but i'll do my best)
LOTS OF TALENT: Bengals, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings
SOME TALENT: Titans, Redskins, Lions, 9ers, Bills
LITTLE TALENT: Panthers, Cardinals, Broncos
now, which coaches WILL BE/HAVE BEEN fired? AT LEAST 3/4 in the 1st group. 1/5 in the second group. 2/3 in the 3rd group? now ask yourself where we fall, talent-wise among these groups? are similar teams dropping their HC?
last thing in reference to those teams above...6/8 teams in the 2nd/3rd groups have been held back by QB issues, one way or another. only 1/4 in the top group. have we had QB issues influencing our success?
so the ultimate conclusion for me at this time, between the above info, what my eyes tell me, the strength-of-schedule, game-day decisions, personnel decisions, the impact of tear-down/rebuild, the impending lack of offseason, etc., is this:
i don't know that Mangini can get us to the next level, but i don't know that he can't. i want 1 more year.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220 |
Which premise Dj?
He broke things down in different categories, using reasoning for each phase. So you can't break that down by each category and show why and what you disagree with point by point?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220 |
Well Attack...............
From my observations, this team, at least the O side, plays with far more intensity with Colt at QB. He has the heart, the drive, the will and the ability to create plays on O that every other QB we have falls short on.
I believe they see him as their leader and as such seem to elevate their overall play when he's at the QB position. Sunday will give us a little more evidence in that regard.
But the games with colt, vesres those without colt, seem to be in stark contrast to me. Not saying it's impossible for us to win without him, but I feel the probabilty greatly increases with him as our starter. From both the QB play standpoint and as the O's intensity as a whole.
I also feel his mobility helps us to be able to call some plays that we simply can't run with JD at QB and makes the oposing D have to account for Colt's feet.
jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220 |
Quote:
..tell me if NE had been on their game would they have rolled Cleveland like they've been steamrolling everyone else?
I don't think so.
I think, from my above post, that a lot of that may very well be determined on who was starting at QB.
I do believe that a team as a whole, one unit feeds off of the other.
If the D sees no intensity from the O, eventualy they will become disheartened and the intensity from them will diminish as well. Being a team sport it impacts both sides to some degree imo
With Jake as our starter? I believe there is every chance NE would have stomped us like grapes.
jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Which premise Dj?
He broke things down in different categories, using reasoning for each phase. So you can't break that down by each category and show why and what you disagree with point by point?
Which part of my last post didnt you get? His whole post was defending the small ball approach, trying to understand why we run this philosophy....
I actually disagree twice
1. I don't think we're the less talented team more often...we are NOT less talented than KC, TB, CIN, JAX, BUF, CAR..that's almost half our schedule. If you think we are, we can do a team comparison breakdown...I really think you guys just have no clue about the league as a whole....that is another good think about being a draft-nerd....I follow a lot of prospects careers
2. I see a different gameplan against good teams pretty much nulliefies his house he built from there....it's simply not true....or did you see us run, run, pass against NE? See...we are way more conservative against worse teams....Vers said it's because the coache's know we are the inferior team....reality is vice versa though: the worse the opponent, the more conservative the gameplan = good bye argument...or do you agree we played more conservatively against NE and NO?
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Quote:
If Holmgren fires Mangini then it's clear he never gave Mangini a fair shot.
You give a coach a QB who was the worst in the NFL the year before whose skills have diminished further and see if he can win with said QB.
You give him one of the least talented offenses in the NFL and expect miracles. It doesn't happen.
If Holmgren fires Mangini to return to the sidelines it will be due to Holmgren's own greed...and the success that Holmgren will have in the future will be due to the foundation Mangini built (much like Rex's success in New York).
Is that fair to Coach? I sure as hell don't think so.
This organization moved past Mangini as the long-term solution the moment Holmgren was hired. Regardless of whether you think Mangini got a fair shake or not, Holmgren wasn't hired to give Mangini a fair shake... he was hired to do what he sees best for the organization.
Mike Holmgren is a WCO guy. The GM he brought in has drafted for a WCO team and head coach and many of his advisors are WCO guys. It's his bread and butter and that goes back to his days as Walsh's assisant. Mangini comes from an entirely different school of football. That isn't going to change... guys stick with what they know.
To expand on the old Parcells analogy, if a head coach is going to be cooking the meal, he'll want to buy the groceries. If that's not an option, I'd assume he'd at least want to make the shopping list. The kind of guys Mangini is going to put on his shopping list aren't the kind of guys that Holmgren/Heckert think make the best meal. You can have two world class chefs but if they have different ideas about how to make the best meal, you're never going to see eye to eye and an organization NEEDS to be on the same page if it wants to win.
That's nothing against Mangini, just an understanding that if you're going to strip him of his GM and then presumably his OC, what's the point of keeping him around? What's the point of putting him "in charge" of the team and giving him no authority to do what he wants to do? At some point, you have to choose between Holmgren and Mangini's way of doing things and Randy Lerner made it clear Holmgren is boss.
Don't feel bad for Mangini... he's salvaged enough with this team that he's a lock for a defensive coordinator position and he's still young enough that after a few years repaying his dues he'll probably be back somewhere. He'll be fine. It's just something where we have two conflicting philosophies and at some point, you have to choose.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
That's nothing against Mangini, just an understanding that if you're going to strip him of his GM and then presumably his OC, what's the point of keeping him around? What's the point of putting him "in charge" of the team and giving him no authority to do what he wants to do?
I already asked this one and got no answer...
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
This organization moved past Mangini as the long-term solution the moment Holmgren was hired. Regardless of whether you think Mangini got a fair shake or not, Holmgren wasn't hired to give Mangini a fair shake... he was hired to do what he sees best for the organization.
Then why would Mangini have been given another year? Why would Holmgren have given Mangini another year just for the sake of being given another year?
That would make no sense to me. If you think and expect that Mangini was never the long term answer, and never could be the long term answer, then why put the "upcoming, new" regime, which presumably would be the long term answer, a year behind?
Either Holmgren thought and expected that Mangini could be the long term guy, and thus kept him on ...... or Holmgren is the wrong guy for the job. If he kept Mangini fully expecting that he would not be "the guy", then he is a moron, and put the team another year back in the rebuilding process. If nothing else, he cost the new coach a year of putting his philosophy and standards in place.
If that were the case, i would lose all respect for Holmgren, and would immediately ask for his removal, because he would have stopped acting in the best interests of the Cleveland Browns, and would have instead gone off on some idiotic path, which I hope exists only in the minds of certain posters.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
That's nothing against Mangini, just an understanding that if you're going to strip him of his GM and then presumably his OC, what's the point of keeping him around? What's the point of putting him "in charge" of the team and giving him no authority to do what he wants to do?
I already asked this one and got no answer...
the HC is in charge of keeping the structure of the team, providing leadership and direction and getting everyone to work diligently in that direction to accomplish the goals.
if the HC has someone else providing players, how does that undermine the above?
if the HC has to replace an OC (as many HC's across the NFL do), how does that undermine the above?
the 2nd is more prone to undermining the HC, but as long as Mangini is involved in the OC selection process and agrees on the OC choice and can work with him, then it is a non-issue.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,220 |
Well I agree with him in regards to the talent "we have", not so much comparing them to who you're playing.
I mean to complicate a game plan, you must have the talent to execute the plays you call. you need make less mistakes and take advantage of their mistakes.
so to a great extent I do agee with the overall premise of his post.
jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
did you see us run, run, pass against NE? See...we are way more conservative against worse teams....
we ran 44 times, we passed 19 times against NE. so, yes. I saw us run, run, pass against NE. in fact, that is the only game where that ratio holds up.
Quote:
do you agree we played more conservatively against NE and NO?
against NO, we had a drive where we ran 9 times in a row before using the Hillis-as-QB play to Colt (which was setup by the ability to run 9 times in a row successfully). we passed for 78 yards that day.
outside of that trick-play to Colt and the Hodges punt-fake (which reportedly was an option he has anytime he sees the punt-return team open up like the red sea as it did), we were pretty conservative on offense. it was just successful on that day.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Quote:
Quote:
This organization moved past Mangini as the long-term solution the moment Holmgren was hired. Regardless of whether you think Mangini got a fair shake or not, Holmgren wasn't hired to give Mangini a fair shake... he was hired to do what he sees best for the organization.
Then why would Mangini have been given another year? Why would Holmgren have given Mangini another year just for the sake of being given another year?
That would make no sense to me. If you think and expect that Mangini was never the long term answer, and never could be the long term answer, then why put the "upcoming, new" regime, which presumably would be the long term answer, a year behind?
Either Holmgren thought and expected that Mangini could be the long term guy, and thus kept him on ...... or Holmgren is the wrong guy for the job. If he kept Mangini fully expecting that he would not be "the guy", then he is a moron, and put the team another year back in the rebuilding process. If nothing else, he cost the new coach a year of putting his philosophy and standards in place.
If that were the case, i would lose all respect for Holmgren, and would immediately ask for his removal, because he would have stopped acting in the best interests of the Cleveland Browns, and would have instead gone off on some idiotic path, which I hope exists only in the minds of certain posters.
I don't think he gave Mangini another year for the hell of it nor do I think he did it because he thought he was the guy for sure, I think he did it because he wanted to see what Mangini was capable of doing. You have to figure in his conversations with Randy it probably came up how highly Randy thought of Mangini and when figuring out what to do, Holmgren probably decided he wanted to give it a season to see if it could work. Hell, he's said as much.
Holmgren isn't dumb... he realizes that it takes more than one year to build a contender but at the same time, he realizes when it's time to cut bait and move on. It's what our FO did with Quinn and that move has paid huge dividends. After one year of evaluation of Mangini and one year previous as well, he probably has a good idea at this point whether or not he'll work out as coach within the system we're building.
All I think this has been is Holmgren being pragmatic and not jumping to any conclusions right away but rather, taking a year to gather it all in and make more educated decisions moving foward than he otherwise would've. I'd rather he take an extra year and get it right than rush into it and screw it up. Nothing wrong with that IMO but it sure is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way if it ends in Mangini being let go. There should be some confidence, however, that if he is let go, it's being done because Holmgren thought long and hard about it and is doing it for the right reasons.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I would hope that Holmgren would think long and hard about it.
Some of the names being thrown around don't exactly fill me with confidence. I'm not a big Chuckie fan ... and really don't think much of him as a Head Coach. His teams have been up and down, year after year, with his teams having back to back winning seasons only twice.
I'd pass on him.
Fox isn't out in Carolina .... yet he's the other name brought up a lot. I'm not sold on him either. I look at some of the elite coaches ...... and I don't think that Fox is one of them. His teams have nothing that they hang their hats on and do supremely well, year in and year out.
Remember Cower's teams? Man, they played defense every single stinkin' year. In Cower's time there, they were out of the top 10 in total defense 3 times ..... 13th in his 1st year, and 11th and 12th in 2 other years.
You knew that you better come to play, or you'd go home black and blue.
I see this same mindset with Mangini. That's the kind of team I want. I don't want a finesse team who schemes their way to up and down results ....I want a physical team that punches the other teams in the mouth, knocks them down, over and over again, and takes their will.
I worry about changing Head Coaches just for the sake of changing Head Coaches. I go back to Gruden, as his is the name most often thrown around.
Prior to his arrival with teh Raiders, the Raiders went 10-6, 9-7, 8-8. 7-9, and 4-12. Then they went 8-8 and 8-8 in Gruden's 1st 2 seasons. Then they went 12-4 and 10-6, and Gruden left for Tampa Bay. Is what Gruden did there a better job than Mangini has done here? Gruden got lucky at QB. Remember the 1 year experiment with Donald Hollis at QB? Then he got Gannon, and all was good in RaiderLand. Excellent coaching .. or luck? Maybe both? I'll say both because they got the right QB, and the offense exploded.
However, look at those teams.
They were #5, 6, and 7 in total offense in the Gannon/Gruden years. They were 10, 18, and 18 in total defense. Their records were 8-8, 12-4, and 10-6.
The year afyer Gruden left, the Raiders improved in total offense, scoring, total defense, and scoring defense. Then they went to the Super Bowl to play Gruden's new team.
Gruden took over a Super Bowl contender in Tampa .... won .. then went 7-8 and 5-11 in the next 2 years. They had 5 different starting QBs over that time.
Looking at Gruden as a coach, it seems that hsi teams do well when he can find that veteran who can carry his offense for him ..... but I can't think of any young QBs that he developed. He had Brad Johnson ... then he tried Brain Greise, then Chris Simms, then Bruce Gradkowski, then Jeff Garcia .......
I want a guy who can develop whoever the next QB in Cleveland is going to be. There is nothing in Gruden's past that suggests that he is the guy to do this important job.
I am also reminded of how the Bucs were ridiculed for picking Morris as their Head Coach. here was this inexperienced guy ... and not even Gruden could get this team turned around anytimg soon.
Well, 2 years later and they appear to be well on their way to turned around.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
I don't think Holmgren wants to fire Mangini and will give him every chance to be successful. I think you can go back to that holmgren press conference. He was blown away with the things that Ryan was coming up with and u could see that excitement. When it came to the offense and Daboll, the only positive he could come up with was, he works hard, all the coaches work hard.
I think it is certain that Daboll is done for. Look Holmgren has his offensive philosophy that he believes in and he drafted a deadly accurate passer that just screams west coast offense.
I believe Holmgren is going to push for a new offensive staff including a new OC. I think he likes and respects Mangini and Mangini will be safe another year unless things totally implode these last 3 weeks. You get a Holmgren offense mixed in with a Ryan/Gini defense and who knows but hey if he can't get anyone to work with Mangini as the one article suggested, then it doesn't bode well for Mangini's tenure in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
A couple of articles on the subject .... from Mangini's side ..... http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/12/cleveland_browns_coach_eric_ma_28.htmlCleveland Browns coach Eric Mangini on possibly being let go despite team's progress: "Sometimes it happens'' | cleveland.com CLEVELAND -- Browns coach Eric Mangini acknowledged today that despite the Browns' growth and ability to beat elite teams this year such as the Patriots and Saints, that "sometimes it happens'' that coaching changes are still made. He knows firsthand: he was fired by the Jets after a 9-7 season in 2008 despite the fact Brett Favre was injured and went in the tank down the stretch. Browns President Mike Holmgren has made it clear he'll evaluate Mangini and his staff after the season, and that wins and losses won't be the only criteria. But the fact remains that Holmgren is from the West Coast coaching tree and presiding over a system totally foreign to him. NFL Network is reporting that Mangini needs to finish strong to keep his job, and that ESPN's Jon Gruden and Caroliona's John Fox would be top candidates to replace him. Mangini said he hasn't been told he needs to win a certain number of games to stick around and he doesn't anticipate having those conversations. He said the approach for him is just "win the next game and the next one.'' He also said he values having Holmgren and general manager Tom Heckert and that they've worked great together. As for the long-term prospects of the mixed marriage between Holmgren-Mangini, Mangini said it can be good. "It's like the Brady Bunch,'' he said with a laugh. "I feel good about the growth of the team and what we've been able to do,'' he said. "It's a process.''
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/12/cleveland_browns_eric_mangini_30.htmlCleveland Browns' Eric Mangini can make a case to keep job by winning | cleveland.com Browns coach Eric Mangini knows the best way to keep his job is with a strong finish in the final three games, beginning with Sunday's visit to the 2-11 Bengals. The Browns would like to see Mangini beat the Bengals -- who have lost 10 straight -- and then have solid outings at home against the Ravens and Steelers. But Browns President Mike Holmgren hasn't given him the exact number of victories he needs to survive. "No, we haven't talked like that at all," Mangini said. "I don't expect to have those conversations. It's not how we're going to operate as a staff or as a group. It's: 'Win this game, deal with the next game, deal with the next game and then deal with whatever the situation is when the time comes.' " NFL Network's Jason La Canfora reported Thursday night that "it will likely take a strong finish for Mangini to keep his job and that evaluations are ongoing." He also reported that league sources identified two potential candidates to replace Mangini as ESPN analyst Jon Gruden and current Panthers coach John Fox, who is in the midst of a 1-12 season. A Browns spokesman declined to comment on the report, saying that Holmgren will not address the topic until after the season. Holmgren said after the bye week that he will evaluate Mangini after the season and then make a decision. He said wins and losses would not be the sole criteria. Sources say Holmgren likes Mangini and wants to see him succeed. But if Holmgren decides he wants to start over with his own people and with a West Coast system, a Browns losing record would be the perfect excuse to do it. The top brass didn't look happy after the loss in Buffalo last week, where the Browns lost, 13-6, to the Bills, who entered the game 2-10. Nor did they look pleased after the Browns lost, 24-20, in Jacksonville despite six takeaways by the defense. "Sometimes [change] happens, where it's not necessarily right or wrong, it's just different," Mangini said. "The great thing about this situation is that the end goal with Mike [Holmgren], [GM] Tom [Heckert] and myself is exactly the same. It's to win, to build an organization that's special, to build an organization that Cleveland deserves and has been waiting for. How you get to the goal, there are a lot of different paths." The Browns likely will shake up the offensive coaching staff (the Browns are averaging 18.1 points per game, 30th in the league). It won't necessarily have to be a West Coast system, just something more effective than the 2010 edition. Good games from rookie quarterback Colt McCoy against three AFC North foes could help maintain the status quo. "Believe me, in a perfect world, you want to have one quarterback that's there every single week," Mangini said. Mangini said he doesn't know if the Browns have shown enough progress this season for Holmgren to keep him around. At one point this season, the Browns were one of the hotter teams in football, beating the Saints, Patriots and almost knocking off the Jets. Since then, the Saints (6-0) and Patriots (5-0) have gone undefeated. "I feel good about the things that we've done and the direction of the team," Mangini said. "There are steps that you go through in any growth process, and we've taken a lot of those steps, but we need to continue to take that next step, which is winning consistently. When you're trying to build it for the long term, you have to do it the right way. I think we've made a lot of good strides there." Mangini said he's relished the input he's received this season from Holmgren and Heckert. "That's been tremendous for me personally," Mangini said. "I've really been a part of one family tree for a long time, and it's kind of like when you get married. You get exposed to all of your wife's customs, family and traditions and it's like, 'Oh, OK. I'll celebrate that holiday. That's cool.' " Can the blended family continue to co-exist? "Yes, it's like the Brady Bunch," Mangini said with a laugh. Defensive coordinator Rob Ryan said he's not worried about his future. "I like it here in Cleveland," Ryan said. "We don't want to move. We shouldn't have to if we go out here and take care of business like we should. However it comes out, I'll be great with it. When I first got in the league I'd be scared [senseless], but not now. Now it's like, 'Please, there is nobody better.' I don't care. I'm going to coach my [tail] off, I'm going to prepare our team. I'm going to prepare it better than anybody else does on Sunday. I've been doing that all year now; we can look that up; that's documented." He said it's obvious the Browns are much-improved and on the right track. "I think this is a different team now from when we first got here," he said. "There weren't a whole lot of believers other than me and a couple other guys probably. I'm usually pretty optimistic. I think it's obvious, our team is a good football team."
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
I don't think Gini lost his job in NY for going 9-7... I think it was b/c of his attitude...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
If Holmgren fires Mangini then it's clear he never gave Mangini a fair shot.
You give a coach a QB who was the worst in the NFL the year before whose skills have diminished further and see if he can win with said QB.
You give him one of the least talented offenses in the NFL and expect miracles. It doesn't happen.
If Holmgren fires Mangini to return to the sidelines it will be due to Holmgren's own greed...and the success that Holmgren will have in the future will be due to the foundation Mangini built (much like Rex's success in New York).
Is that fair to Coach? I sure as hell don't think so.
This organization moved past Mangini as the long-term solution the moment Holmgren was hired. Regardless of whether you think Mangini got a fair shake or not, Holmgren wasn't hired to give Mangini a fair shake... he was hired to do what he sees best for the organization.
Mike Holmgren is a WCO guy. The GM he brought in has drafted for a WCO team and head coach and many of his advisors are WCO guys. It's his bread and butter and that goes back to his days as Walsh's assisant. Mangini comes from an entirely different school of football. That isn't going to change... guys stick with what they know.
To expand on the old Parcells analogy, if a head coach is going to be cooking the meal, he'll want to buy the groceries. If that's not an option, I'd assume he'd at least want to make the shopping list. The kind of guys Mangini is going to put on his shopping list aren't the kind of guys that Holmgren/Heckert think make the best meal. You can have two world class chefs but if they have different ideas about how to make the best meal, you're never going to see eye to eye and an organization NEEDS to be on the same page if it wants to win.
That's nothing against Mangini, just an understanding that if you're going to strip him of his GM and then presumably his OC, what's the point of keeping him around? What's the point of putting him "in charge" of the team and giving him no authority to do what he wants to do? At some point, you have to choose between Holmgren and Mangini's way of doing things and Randy Lerner made it clear Holmgren is boss.
Don't feel bad for Mangini... he's salvaged enough with this team that he's a lock for a defensive coordinator position and he's still young enough that after a few years repaying his dues he'll probably be back somewhere. He'll be fine. It's just something where we have two conflicting philosophies and at some point, you have to choose.
same ole stuff that was being said last year at this time. Turned out to be way off base last year,, don't know what this year will bring. I expect we'll know in about 3 weeks or so.
But if we learned anything from last year, holmgren is at least open to OTHER ways of doing things.
Having said that, my guess is that if he retains Mangini, he'll want a different offense. He's got HIS QB in place with McCoy so it wouldn't surprise me if there was a severe change in the offensive system.. that's not me knocking Daboll or the present system, I don't think they have horses to pull it off. But if they have to reload, then my guess is they will reload with the type of guys that suite the WCO.. just a guess..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
We aren't very far from having a Holmgren type of offensive team in place.
QB- check Colt was hearing the Montana comparison his freshmen year.
OL- RT needed no matter what system
RB- Check Hardesty and Hillis have great hands. Hell hillis may have the best hands on the team. Think Shawn Alexander with the ability to run routes and make catches add someone like a Derek Locke from Ky in the 4th or 5th with that 4.28 speed to mix in.
Receiver. Cribbs is really the only run after catch receiver (the play he hurt his toes on was an example) but Mo could put up huge yards the way he is willing to go over the middle. Will need 2 or possibly even 3 more receivers Julio Jones hmm.
FB - check Vickers at one time was a terrific weapon, just needs the reps i would think
TE check we are set here
So I dont really see any set back in converting this team over to the WCO. The only hard part will be learning their language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
We aren't very far from having a Holmgren type of offensive team in place.
QB- check Colt was hearing the Montana comparison his freshmen year.
OL- RT needed no matter what system
RB- Check Hardesty and Hillis have great hands. Hell hillis may have the best hands on the team. Think Shawn Alexander with the ability to run routes and make catches add someone like a Derek Locke from Ky in the 4th or 5th with that 4.28 speed to mix in.
Receiver. Cribbs is really the only run after catch receiver (the play he hurt his toes on was an example) but Mo could put up huge yards the way he is willing to go over the middle. Will need 2 or possibly even 3 more receivers Julio Jones hmm.
FB - check Vickers at one time was a terrific weapon, just needs the reps i would think
TE check we are set here
So I dont really see any set back in converting this team over to the WCO. The only hard part will be learning their language.
Yup,, you are probably right.. I did have another thought, and it's way out there I admit. But, I wonder if it's fair to say that Daboll has been getting tutored by Gil Haskell (and maybe even Holmgren to a point) for the last year in preperation for the full switch to a more WCO type of deal.
Not sure if that's even reasonable to think about but I wonder about these next three games.. 2 of which are pretty stout D's. With McCoy back as well.. will we see a glimpse of what's planned? and could it spell the retaintion of Daboll if it works?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Quote:
I don't think Holmgren wants to fire Mangini and will give him every chance to be successful. I think you can go back to that holmgren press conference. He was blown away with the things that Ryan was coming up with and u could see that excitement. When it came to the offense and Daboll, the only positive he could come up with was, he works hard, all the coaches work hard.
I think it is certain that Daboll is done for. Look Holmgren has his offensive philosophy that he believes in and he drafted a deadly accurate passer that just screams west coast offense.
I believe Holmgren is going to push for a new offensive staff including a new OC. I think he likes and respects Mangini and Mangini will be safe another year unless things totally implode these last 3 weeks. You get a Holmgren offense mixed in with a Ryan/Gini defense and who knows but hey if he can't get anyone to work with Mangini as the one article suggested, then it doesn't bode well for Mangini's tenure in Cleveland.
I agree with most of what you're saying. I really do believe that Holmgren wants to see Mangini succeed. I think he sees the football smarts in him and no one wants more turnover. There will have to be minimal changes obviously (Daboll) but there's a problem with doing that aside from what I said in my earlier post.
Here's the problem... what happens if we lose out or beat Cincy and then get clobbered by Pittsburgh and Baltimore? Now, you're asking Holmgren to keep a coach who was on the hot seat at 5-11 and who followed that up with 5-11 or 6-10. It is really, really hard to justify keeping a guy after that because if he follows that up with another bomb, the result is disastrous. People are going to ask Holmgren why he didn't put his system in right away, why he tolerated losing for so long, etc.
Like I said, I really do think Holmgren wants to see Mangini succeed but after coming in following a miserable 5-11 season and following that up with a season just as bad, how much tolerance does Holmgren have for losing before as much as he may like Mangini, he finally decides that he can't deal with it anymore?
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 601
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 601 |
Quote:
ike I said, I really do think Holmgren wants to see Mangini succeed but after coming in following a miserable 5-11 season and following that up with a season just as bad, how much tolerance does Holmgren have for losing before as much as he may like Mangini, he finally decides that he can't deal with it anymore?
Good point but the above makes me also wonder if considerations by our F.O. will be taken at some of the decisions made at their level that could have handicapped the talent level and contributed to the result that fell short of the expectation?
Namely the decision to bring in Jake... I understand the intent even though I HATED the move.. Bring in a guy that has a track record of being a team player, knows a WCO, can be a valuable mentor to a young inexperienced QB and also be a stop gap until the youngster can take the reigns... We over paid for him and again, as much as I hate the result, I understand the intent...
Maybe I am overthinking it here but I would feel that this is where MH would realize that it was his call to bring in JD and the result of his poor play has contributed to some of the failed execution on the field...
This is where I think the grumblings of how our coaching staff will not be evaluated on W/L record holds some merit... IF and I say IF this truly is how EM's evaluation will go, I am confident barring a meltdown that he will be given a third season...
Despite the offensive woes, there has been some marked improvement in our team fundementals and no one on either side of the argument can deny that the foundation of talent that is starting to form to compliment that is starting to materialize...
JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Another thing to consider is that we have THE most difficult schedule in the NFL (at least until 2 wks ago).
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622 |
Never thought this thread would break 100 replies... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I just wonder ......
How bad would it make Holmgren look if he let Mangini take all of the hits during what was a pretty impossible season ...... only to swoop in and pick the bones by firing Mangini and then taking over with a better team .... and an easier schedule?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
Why would Holmgren look bad at all no matter the decision?
He has given Mangini total autonomy.
There are arguments to let Mangini stay. There are arguments to let him go.
Both sides have merit.
Holmgren won't look bad no matter what.
If Mangini gets let go, it's on Mangini.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Lunacy of Firing Mangini
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
